I doubt that the defense will have much difficulty establishing that the speed was far in excess of 55 mph.

However...this case will be heard in a California court and bizarre outcomes often happen there.

This reminds me of the McDonalds "too hot" coffee lawsuit but that one was in New Mexico.

 

Just to set the record straight regarding the tires. I have owned my CGT since 2005 and only recently (last year) changed the original tires. With only 3k miles on the car the tires were obviously still in decent shape (tread wise). However, I knew the were hard as rocks and would be unsafe if driven anywhere near the limit. However, somewhere below that limit the tires also contributed to the "fun factor" in making the car a little more "edgy" and nervous (but I am familiar with where that limit is and make sure I never get close to it).

I am surprised that Roger decided to push that envelope with original tires. My original tires scared my Porsche tech on the last service when he took it for a test drive. He said it was like driving on ice. That's when I decided it was time to change the tires. Yes. The newer tires make a huge difference. The car is 100% more stable. It's lost some of it's edginess but it's definitely alot safer. One other thing to mention is that whether the tires were old or new is secondary to the fact that these tires need to be warmed up. Any tires for that fact. But these tires need at least 10-15 minutes to build up enough heat to start to work. The crash looks like it happened from the outset within a minute or couple of minutes of leaving the event. Unless they had tire warmers going I'm certain the "old and hard as rock" element coupled with them being cold plus the excessive speed was a deadly combination.

 

From another thread....

"Porsche was actually sued over this car's handling in 2005, after a driver and his passenger were killed during a track event. $4.5 million settlement split several ways: the deceased driver was found to be 49% at fault, the track 41% (for the pit exit design), a different car's driver 2%, and Porsche 8% for not including a stability control system on a car known to be touchy.

So the car has a legal history, and it's known for snapping out of control. Professional test drivers have professed their fear of it. It's the wrong car to take risks with and Rodas should've known that. Especially on old tires."

 

I am not sure if this has been discussed here but I think i know exactly why the Carrera Gt crashed.
It was a combo of worn tires and the small little "bumpers" which are on the road.
Rodas surley hit it in 2nd gear and (maybe not even speeding just a quick little pull 2sec or so) and the car breaks out .. With the tires there is no way he is catching it and the bumpers let the "analog" porsche gt slip ..

 

That is exactly what I thought when I first read this thread...

Were the bummers put there to prevent speeding and ironically caused the crash ?

 

Dave - they are Botts' Dots.. common in California. Not a speed deterrent, they are lane markers (in place of painted lines).

 

no, they were doing 100mph + thru a curve they couldn't handle. you can bs all you want about the tires, would have happened anyways unless someone like Senna was behind the wheel

 

That pretty much sums it up!

 

Exactly.

If the tires had more grip, the "breakaway" could have occurred at a higher speed anyway.

 

At the end of the day you're right. It was ultimately SPEED that caused this crash. I don't know how Rodas' wife's attorney is going to argue otherwise. 55? I don't think any reasonable person (or jury) is going to believe that BUT I do think other factors resulted in him having absolutely no control (versus the possibility of some control).

I know what the car feels like on hard old tires versus the newer tires and also when the tires are cold versus warm. I also know what it's like to drive over those bots dots (or whatever they're called) at speed. It was almost a "perfect storm" in the sense that multiple factors combined together at that moment created a crash with no chance of recovery. If any of those elements had been absent (ie. no bots dots to cause the car to skip and lose even more traction) he may have had some form of control that might have prevented him from hitting the tree.

It's ALOT of "ifs" but again I agree that speed was the main culprit. The other factors might have prevented death but nothing would have prevented the accident. Simply a tragedy!

 

What if there were no bot dots but rather painted stripes that could offer less adhesion? Was it proven a Bot Dot was ran over?

 

I think her and her Attorney, will definitely have a hard time proving the car was only going 55mph. Where I think they may have a case is based on the part where they say...

"namely a faulty right rear suspension and the lack of a crash cage and proper fuel tank". "The Carrera GT was unsafe for its intended use by reason of defects in its manufacture, design, testing, component and constituents, so that it would not safely serve its purpose."

And then....

"The Carrera GT is known as a difficult car to drive. As the LA Times report points out, Jay Leno spun one at Talladega in 2005, and the following year, Porsche paid part of a multi-million-dollar settlement after two were killed on a track when their Carrera GT struck a slower-moving Ferrari. The Rodas lawsuit could very well point to that previous suit from San Diego Superior Court. Whether the court in LA will hand down a similar ruling remains to be seen."

Then add to that the pictures easily found around the web of crashed CGT's split in half the same exact way, where the speeds were said to be less than 90 mph.

Just saying, she might have a case.

 

Just my experience with bott dots. In 1973 I was stupidly racing a 356B. I was driving a 914-6. We were going uphill starting to gradually turn towards the right following the road, but hard on the steering wheel when my front tires hit bott dots. it momentarily unweighted the front end, the steering wheel lost all resistance and turned right immediately. After spinning around, hitting the curb, I went down the road at about 55mph on my roof. Thank god for the targa style roll bar and my 5 point harness. I was unhurt but the "6" was totaled. Bott dots and stupidity caused my crash.

 

This means if you die in a car, your estate can sue no matter what. That's ridiculous.

Leno spun because his technique for that car, on a high-speed closed circuit, was not proper for the car.

Most of those pictures are of the same car and quite a few had intact passenger cages. Also the lawsuit crash "appeared" survivable but the vector of the forces obviously make it impossible to survive as equipped.

This is ridiculous. It would NOT have happened if the driver showed better judgement. It is NOT the car's "fault". Might as well recall every FWD car that plows like crazy. Or Ford trucks with long braking distances.

It's the driver's fault, period, the end.

 

IMO she cannot/will not win as the precedent it sets is too far reaching. It would literally open the flood gates.